Legal Opinion

Royer v. Maib

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1940No. 28016PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

In the complaint in this action, there were three causes of action, separately stated, in each of which the plaintiffs sought a money judgment. The plaintiffs were Preston Royer and his wife, and the defendants were H. T. Maib and his wife and Milford H. Maib and his wife.

The cause was tried to the court, and resulted in findings of fact from which it was concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover upon the first cause of action, but were entitled to recover upon the second and third. Judgment was entered upon the second cause of action in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hornor v. HenningSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Patterson v. StewartSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  3. Low v. BuchananIllinois Supreme Court · 1879
  4. Preston v. HowellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  5. In re Beachy & Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1909

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Maib v. Maryland Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1943
  2. True's Oil Co. v. KeeneyWashington Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Scharf v. HarstadWashington Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Young v. The Standard Fire Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API